Interviewing a cross section of voters across America, I asked: “Who among the presidential candidates do you like; who do you believe is qualified to be our next President?” The majority of respondents answered: “No one!”
The only common attribute that describes the current crop of candidates is their mediocrity, with two possible exceptions -- John McCain and John Edwards. Even there, the stretch is very wide considering the standards established over the life of our nation and explains why so many voters are quite depressed and disgusted.
Just consider the leaders of our infant Republic: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton. We had so many first-rate leaders that men of the undoubted capacity of Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin could be passed over for president – they were not needed!
And, look at this past century -- Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan -- these were leaders of the first rank.
Who do we have today that we can honestly say measures up to the standards set during all these past administrations? The present group of presidential candidates is very long on ambition and short on solid, impressive accomplishments and experience. All lack the visible potential to achieve greatness. The presidency is not the place for on-the-job training. The presidency is the capstone office of an achievement-filled career.
Prior to the State of the Union address by our nation’s Chief Executive, the Sergeant-at-Arms calls out to the assembled Congress: “Mr. Speaker – the President of the United States.” For the past eight years, we have had a figurative midget – George W. Bush -- who has taken the Presidency to a new all-time low.
The novelty-obsessed media is fascinated only with the possibility of a first woman candidate or a first African American candidate and are neglecting to acknowledge the importance of this election and the sanctity of the presidency.
Last year, I was privileged to be appointed Senior Advisor to Ambassador David Abshire’s Center for the Study of the Presidency in Washington, DC. The Center’s goals are to study how America can strengthen our highest office and restore international respect for the presidency. I helped write a fresh appraisal of the qualities the next president will need to lead America in the 21st century. Dr. Abshire believes the next president will need moral character as well as keen intelligence, analytic ability and resolute determination to deal with our complex issues at home and abroad.
Restoring the presidency cannot be outsourced or handed to expert consultants. The president must make crucial decisions based on personal knowledge, experience and ability. Above all, this office is a sacred trust and not a mere prize of ambition. Our president is the sum of all of our hopes, pride and aspirations.
Is the 2008 election going to be a political version of “American Idol” or will we, at some point, have the opportunity to learn what each of these candidates actually stand for and where each would lead America as we fight two wars and one recession?
I do not believe that is too much to ask?
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
To Mr. Whalen's comments and questions I would ask, why have some of our best leaders chosen not to run? I was looking forward to a contest that included Al Gore and Colin Powell. Thank goodness the contest at least includes John Edwards and John McCain.
Perhaps we should be asking what kind of contest we offer? We have added two important media - talk radio and online blogs - which are largely devoid of careful facts, decency, internal controls, and ethics. The major news outlets have each adopted an entertainment formula which targets certain audiences with certain selected facts, exaggerated just enough to grab listener share. The commercial new outlets allow the worst sort of trash, such as "swiftboating", and with the exception of NPR/PBS, never seem to give credence to serious analysis.
We cannot expect to attract the best candidates to a contest which amounts to a public pillory, and which emphasizes the lowest common denominator as the criteria of choice.
Posted by: Polarbear
| December 21, 2007 5:41 PM
Americans often take a nostalgic view of past Presidents and a dismissive view of future leaders. Certainly it could be argued that any choice for President carries a risk, is a leap of faith, or a “roll of the dice”, as expressed recently by President Clinton. It is largely how they confront periods of unexpected crisis that colors our perception of their effectiveness.
To lament the lack of future greatness in the current field of candidates is a ridiculous notion on its face. That would require a measurement against that which is unknowable. Better leaders aren’t running? Well, whose fault is that? If worthy leaders must be begged into running, can they be regarded as great leaders? Absolutely not, a true leader will step up despite all obstacles to lead.
Most notably, Harry Truman did not embody the stuff of legend while he was in office. On his ascendancy, he was all but invisible to most of the ‘enlightened’ electorate of the day. He left office with dismal approval of the American people, but retrospect is 20/20.
Until we can predict future events or see into the candidates’ inner soul, the American people will just have to use their best judgment. It’s a pity, but until someone comes up with a better plan that is all we’ve got.
Posted by: MadMustard
| December 23, 2007 7:02 AM
Post A Comment